Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The Illinois Policy Institute offers up a compromise stopgap

Posted in:

Illinois

The 2016 court ruling puts the attorney general in a position to force the state to stop paying workers, since lawmakers haven’t passed a bill funding state-worker salaries. If the attorney general gets her way, state workers will go without pay until the General Assembly passes an appropriations bill. This could put pressure on state lawmakers to pass another unsustainable state budget like the proposal gaining traction in the Senate, which would subject Illinoisans to massive tax hikes with no real reform, long the priority of Lisa Madigan’s father, House Speaker Mike Madigan.

But the push to force through the Senate’s budget plan is based on a false choice: Lawmakers don’t have to pass this proposal to ensure state workers get paid.

Instead, the General Assembly could pass a clean appropriations bill for state-worker pay, rather than a deal as part of an increasingly complex and unwieldy budget package now taking form in the Illinois Senate.

The governor, however, has said he would demand a permanent property tax freeze and term limits in exchange for his signature on another stopgap budget.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 10:57 am

Comments

===Instead, the General Assembly could pass a clean appropriations bill for state-worker pay, rather than a deal as part of an increasingly complex and unwieldy budget package now taking form in the Illinois Senate.===

Higher Ed?

Social Servives?

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:00 am
Don’t pass an unsustainable budget; instead, pass a unsustainable approp bill to fund state-worker salaries….gotcha!

Comment by Under Influenced... Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:07 am
IPI wants its patron, Bruce Rauner, to be free from all legal, fiscal, and political consequences of his disastrous reign.

Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:07 am
If the GA and Gov don’t pass either a stop-gap or full budget, then the shut-down can be painted as Rauner’s … Governor’s own.

That doesn’t match Rauner’s game plan. He wants a state shut-down caused by an AFSCME so he can play the good guy in this horse opera.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:09 am
This approach follows the same logic as the transportation lockbox, doesn’t it? Eventually, we could have a dozen little sacred cows, each with its own binding rules, and then, voila! One day, someone comes up with the bright idea of putting these all together in a comprehensive package… sort of like what our State Constitution originally outlined before this madness began.

Comment by morningstar Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:13 am
In IPI’s dreams. This isn’t about not being paid for work, it is about not working because no authority to be paid. If the Court sides with Madigan, how could they not, given the Constitutional language, the G.A. can hand Rauner anything they want and he is the one who would have to pull the trigger on a shut down with a veto. Further, if he does not submit a budget by February 15 look for a writ of mandamus from the Court.

Comment by wondering Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:14 am
A pay appropriation with a contract arbitration stipulation? Two can play at the poison pill game. That would be fun hearing the Governor trying to explain that veto.

Comment by A Jack Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:15 am
Dumb question I know, I thought by they were required to pass an appropriations bill within the limits of the budget? Can they do it with no budget?

Comment by NoGifts Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:18 am
Now why would a group of independent, non-partisan, deep-think-tankers put out a trial balloon on ways to extend a grubby, nasty, destructive, political fight?

Is this in any way one of those “public policy solutions aimed at promoting personal freedom and prosperity in Illinois” that is their self-proclaimed reason-for-being?

They couldn’t clear their throats for months on a multi-billion corporate shakedown from Exelon, but they’re quick out of the gate on a way to keep the fun of the dysfunction goin’?

I’m startin’ to question their sincerity and integrity.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:18 am
- A Jack - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:15 am:

“A pay appropriation with a contract arbitration stipulation? Two can play at the poison pill game. That would be fun hearing the Governor trying to explain that veto.”

Exactly!

Comment by Consideration Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:26 am
Sounds like a Rauner trial balloon. Shoot it down!

Comment by Last Bull Moose Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:26 am
LBM @ 11:26: Bingo. And agreed.

Comment by Northsider Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:28 am
=== I’m startin’ to question their sincerity and integrity. ===

Spit Take

Comment by Norseman Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:29 am
It makes zero - ZERO - sense to pass a bill that would appropriate state worker salaries but not the operating budget that they need to do their jobs.

You would literally be paying them to show up at work and stare at the walls.

I cannot believe the IPI penned such a ridiculous idea.

Comment by Anonymous Lee Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:40 am
Besides, isn’t the IPI supposed to be offering up a compromise budget that requires zero tax hikes?

Comment by Anonymous Lee Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:41 am
IPI - stop trying to pick and choose the hostages. State workers are no less ( something you often forget) and no more important than social service agencies and others. I’m not feeling your love and would prefer you not stick your nose in.
We cannot cut our way out of the budget mess and you know that too. Otherwise you’d be crowing about your own proposed budget.

Comment by Thoughts Matter Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 11:52 am
Bruce to IPI- you guys said she wouldn’t do that!!! Why did she do that?? So what do we do now?

IPI to Bruce- hold my beer, we got this- we’ll just tell everyone to do another stop gap. Our people will buy it and they’ll think it’s for the good of the workers. Problem solved, lamp is lit, it’s 5 o’clock somewhere.

Comment by DuPage Bard Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:07 pm
=A pay appropriation with a contract arbitration stipulation? Two can play at the poison pill game. That would be fun hearing the Governor trying to explain that veto.=

Amendatory veto? He wants them to get paid.

No paychecks would provide too much cover for workers if they strike.

Comment by m Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:09 pm
===No paychecks would provide too much cover for workers if they strike.===

So, you agree to this so it forces a strike…

The AG doesn’t feel a budget is needed, it’s about Labor.

Illinois is without a budget and paying employees with out one is the issue.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:15 pm
Yes, some here have already predicted this result. Bruce will agree to another stopgap to avoid a shutdown even if he doesn’t get his way.

Comment by Anon Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:17 pm
I see Bruce’s mouthpiece has ideas. So many ideas!

Comment by The_Equalizer Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:20 pm
>The governor, however, has said

He’s said a great many things, but those things are not a great predictor of his actions. There certainly is going to be a painful tax increase as well as other painful things, and the longer it takes the worse it gets.

Comment by Earnest Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:28 pm
@OW 11:00 The position at WIU is that university employee salaries do not come through the Comptroller, and are thus unaffected by the AG’s court motion. Whether this applies to university funds generally, I don’t know.

Social services are of course something else again, entirely.

Comment by Flapdoodle Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:41 pm
Amendatory vetoes still must be approved or overriden by the GA. Otherwise the Governor could have done his turn-around agenda with a bunch of amendatory vetoes.

Anyway, as much as I would enjoy the spectacle, I don’t think they should do a piecemeal budget with just an appropriation for employee pay.

Comment by A Jack Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:42 pm
===The position at WIU is that university employee salaries…===

Not everything is about salaries.

How about actually funding Western Illinois University?

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 12:44 pm
Completely unacceptable. Current hostages will resist this idea in total.

Comment by Pawn Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 1:43 pm
Almost every Public University employee I know has come out saying it doesn’t effect my pay. True, but what they don’t get is that if AFSCME falls in this battle THEIR health insurance is going to double because it is pegged to ours. I have been so disappointed in the State University folks. They’re all about their “teach ins” or actions but when it comes to their own health insurance they are totally blind and ignorant. End rant

Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:11 pm
@OW 12:44

Not everything is about salaries — Agreed!

Actual funding — Mysterious silence there, but “working assumption” (yes, I know about assumptions) is that the funding will be available. Above my pay grade.

Comment by Flapdoodle Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:20 pm
CD Davidsmeyer had a clean state worker pay approps bill last year.

Comment by Sugar dad Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:42 pm
=So, you agree to this so it forces a strike…=
Signing employee approp doesn’t force strike. But if a strike is coming, Rauner needs it to happen while paychecks are being paid.

=Amendatory vetoes still must be approved or overriden by the GA=

Yes, but after he av’s it, it’s on the GA whether or not employees get paid. The override votes aren’t there, so Madigan gets to choose whether to just pay employees, or stop all employee pay over a union ask bill that the average Joe doesn’t even understand. And that WILL be the message if it happens. “Two Madigans worked together to stop state employees from getting their paychecks.”

Comment by m Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:53 pm
=Illinois is without a budget and paying employees with out one is the issue.=

On first read I missed what you’re saying. So to make it clear, I’m not now, nor did I previously state that AG Madigan did this to help provide cover for a strike.

All I’m saying is that a stop to paychecks makes a strike easier for AFSCME, more sympathy from public, etc.

But it makes it worse for Rauner is there’s a strike.

I never said that was the motivation for her. I’m not saying it’s not, because I’m sure there were a ton of factors behind her decision. Maybe this was one, maybe it wasn’t. I’m simply talking about the reality of what it means, regardless of the why.

Comment by m Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:57 pm
- Anonymous Lee

Wondering where the IPI’s tax free budget?
Spoiler alert: it will be filled with fund sweeps (including LGDF) and novel legal theories that involve shorting pension payments.

Comment by Roman Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:17 pm
This is the clearest signal yet that Rauner and his apologists are seriously freaking about the other shoe dropping once this court ordered pay stoppage hits.

Comment by Signal and Noise Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:32 pm
===I never said that was the motivation for her. I’m not saying it’s not, because I’m sure there were a ton of factors behind her decision. Maybe this was one, maybe it wasn’t. I’m simply talking about the reality of what it means, regardless of the why.===

Hmm…

===No paychecks would provide too much cover for workers if they strike.===

Lots of words for such speculative thinking that included providing “too much cover”…

Why “too much”? The veto, the AG.

Sounds like a lot to the “why”

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 4:46 pm
=Sounds like a lot to the “why”=

I’m giving you the “why” to Rauner and to AFSCME. Rauner would sign employee pay approp. In the PR war, no paychecks helps AFSCME’s cause in a strike and hurts Rauner’s.

The AG’s “why” is moot (at least to me), because she already did it. Doesn’t matter why. She’s doing what she’s doing.

You seem more concerned with my theory on her motivations, and you’re avoiding the topic of the potential impact on a strike.

So let’s hear it- Do you not think a pay stoppage helps AFSCME in a strike?

Comment by m Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 5:04 pm
===You seem more concerned with my theory on her motivations, and you’re avoiding the topic of the potential impact on a strike.

So let’s hear it- Do you not think a pay stoppage helps AFSCME in a strike?===

This Post is about IPI’s compromise of a stopgap for pay. The only person seemingly concerned about “why”s and strikes are you. I find that odd, given this is IPI and not the budget but a safety valve to keep pressure on a budget deal by paying state employees.

I read your comment. I found it confusing to the Post.

I’ve addressed your question before.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 5:12 pm
Because IPI supports State Workers.

haven’t you seen all their signs?

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 7:01 pm